Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:08:17.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

After Neoliberalism: The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Richard Snyder
Richard Snyder
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get access

Abstract

Neoliberal economic reforms, rather than unleashing market forces, can result in new institutions for market governance. By vacating institutionalized policy domains, neoliberal reforms can trigger two-step reregulation processes, as first, political entrepreneurs launch projects to build support coalitions by reregulating markets, and second, societal groups respond to these projects by mobilizing to influence the terms of reregulation. Depending on the strengths and strategies of politicians and societal groups, reregulation processes result in varied institutions for market governance. The article develops this argument by analyzing how neoliberal reforms in Mexico led to the construction of distinct institutions for market governance across four states (Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Puebla). The findings from Mexico highlight the importance of moving beyond the questions of why developing countries choose neoliberal policies and how they implement them. Students of the political economy of development should shift their attention instead to understanding the kinds of new institutions that replace those destroyed or displaced by neoliberal reforms.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , January 1999 , pp. 173 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fox, Jonathan, “Political Change in Mexico's New Peasant Economy,” in Cook, Maria Lorena et al. , eds., The Politics of Economic Restructuring: State-Society Relations and Regime Change in Mexico (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1994)Google Scholar; and Cornelius, Wayne A. and Myhre, David, eds., The Transformation of Rural Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1998)Google Scholar.

2 Ejea, Gabriela and Hernández, Luis, eds., Cafetaleros:La construccióon de la autonomía (Mexico City: Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Cafetaleras, 1991)Google Scholar; and Cortés, Horacio Santoyo et al. , Sistema agroindustrial café en México: diagnóstico, problemática y alternativas (Chapingo, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, 1994)Google Scholar.

3 Mexico is a federal system with thirty-one states.

4 See, for example, Nelson, Joan M., ed., Economic Crisis and Policy Choice: The Politics of Adjustment in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Bates, Robert H. and Krueger, Anne O., eds., Political and Economic Interactions in Economic Policy Reform: Evidence from Eight Countries (Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, 1993)Google Scholar.

5 See Joan M. Nelson, “Conclusions,” in Nelson (fn. 4).

6 Miles Kahler “Orthodoxy and Its Alternatives: Explaining Approaches to Stabilization and Adjustment,” in Nelson (fn. 4).

7 Thomas M. Callaghy, “Lost between State and Market: The Politics of Economic Adjustment in Ghana, Zambia, and Nigeria,” in Nelson (fn. 4); Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert R., eds., The Politics of Economic Adjustment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

8 Kahler (fn. 6); Peter Evans, “The State as Problem and Solution: Predation, Embedded Autonomy, and Structural Change,” in Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 7); John Waterbury, “The Heart of the Matter? Public Enterprise and the Adjustment Process,” in Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 7); and Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert R., The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 310–14Google Scholar.

9 Chile is a notable exception. See Foxley, Alejandro, Latin American Experiments in Neoconservative Economics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

10 On reregulation in advanced industrial countries, see Moran, Michael, The Politics of the Financial Services Revolution: The U.S.A, U.K., and Japan (New York: St. Martin's, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Vogel, Steven K., Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

11 According to Vogel (fn. 10), the “core agenda of regulatory reform” consists of efforts by bureaucrats to generate revenue and design new mechanisms for policy implementation (p. 19).

12 Noll, Roger G., “Economic Perspectives on the Politics of Regulation,” in Schmalensee, Richard and Willig, Robert D., eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 2 (New York: North-Holland, 1989)Google Scholar; Bates, Robert H., “The Nature and Origins of Agricultural Policies in Africa,” in Bates, , Essays on the Political Economy of Rural Africa (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Migdal, Joel S., Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

14 Bates (fn. 12), 131.

15 Collier, Ruth Berins, The Contradictory Alliance: State-Labor Relations and Regime Change in Mexico (Berkeley, Calif.: Institute for International and Area Studies, 1992)Google Scholar; Burgess, Katrina, “Alliances under Stress: Economic Reform and Party-Labor Relations in Mexico, Venezuela, and Spain” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1997)Google Scholar; and Levitsky, Steven and Way, Lucan A., “Between a Shock and a Hard Place: The Dynamics of Labor-Backed Adjustments in Poland and Argentina,” Comparative Politics 30, no. 2 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 The term “soft state” is from Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1968), 66Google Scholar.

17 My efforts to develop a multilevel analysis of policy choice are influenced by Gourevitch, Peter, Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Crises (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; and Haggard, Stephan, Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

18 Collier, David, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 402–3Google Scholar.

19 Tsebelis, George, “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science 25, no. 3 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Such centralized regimes are exemplified by delegative and majoritarian democracies. See O'Donnell, Guillermo, “Delegative Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 5 (January 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lijphart, Arend, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Mayhew, David, Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

22 On ideas and policy-making, see Hall, Peter A., “The Role of Interests, Institutions, and Ideas in the Comparative Political Economy of the Industrialized Nations,” in Lichbach, Mark Irving and Zuckerman, Alan S., eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

23 See, for example, Geddes, Barbara, “Challenging the Conventional Wisdom,” in Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F., eds., Economic Reform and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; and Zermeno, Sergio, “Crisis, Neoliberalism, and Disorder,” in Foweraker, Joe and Craig, Ann L., eds., Popular Movements and Political Change in Mexico (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1990)Google Scholar.

24 Of course, politicians often try to anticipate how societal actors will respond to their policy choices, especially if regime institutions give them incentives to attend to societal interests. Hence, even in the absence of organized societal pressures, political incumbents may try to incorporate societal preferences into their policy decisions.

25 Between 1970 and 1989 coffee averaged 5.1 percent of the total value of Mexico's exports and 34 percent of the total value of agricultural exports. Approximately three million Mexicans depend on income from coffee production. See Santoyo Cortes et al. (fn. 2).

26 Small producers have less than twenty hectares of land (or approximately fifty acres).

27 See Richard Snyder, “After the State Withdraws: Neoliberalism and Subnational Authoritarian Regimes in Mexico,” in Wayne A. Cornelius et al., eds., Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, forthcoming).

28 Carlos Assad, Martinez and Ayala, Alvaro Arreola, “El poder de los gobernadores,” in Loaeza, Soledad and Segovia, Rafael, eds., La vida polttica mexicana en la crisis (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1987)Google Scholar.

29 Cornelius, Wayne A., Mexican Politics in Transition: The Breakdown of a One-Party Dominant Regime (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1996)Google Scholar.

30 Oropeza, Manuel Gonzalez, La intervention federalen la desaparición de poderes, 2d ed. (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1987)Google Scholar; and Castanon, Alba Teresa Estrada, Guerrero: sociedad, economía, política, cultura (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1994), 75Google Scholar.

31 The term “electoral connection” is from Mayhew (fn. 21).

32 Santoyo Cortées et al. (fn. 2), 25–30. This group comprises farmers with more than twenty hectares.

33 Export quotas were part of the International Coffee Organization's (ICO) regulatory regime. See Bates, Robert H., Open-Economy Politics: The Political Economy of the World Coffee Trade (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

34 Ejea and Hernández (fn. 2).

35 See Camp, Roderic Ai, Mexican Political Biographies, 1935–1993 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), 575Google Scholar.

36 The concept of “social liberalism” was in vogue at the national level after 1988. See Centeno, Miguel Angel, Democracy within Reason: Technocratic Revolution in Mexico, 2d ed. (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1997), 205–10Google Scholar.

37 Del Oaxaca mágico al encuentro con la modernidad: Sets anos de transformation y desarrollo, 1986–1992, marco legislativo (Oaxaca: Government of Oaxaca, 1992), 18Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., 45–46.

39 Pena, Fausto Cantú, “Proyecto de ley para el fomento y desarrollo integral de la cafeticultura en el estado de Oaxaca,” in Primer encuentro estatal de estudio, anahsis y capaatacion sobre cafeticultura (Oaxaca: Secretaria de Desarrollo Rural, 1989)Google Scholar.

40 On the complex meanings of modernization among Mexican political elites, see Centeno (fn. 36), chap. 7.

41 Harvey, Neil, “Rebellion in Chiapas: Rural Reforms, Campesino Radicalism, and the Limits to Salinismo” (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1994)Google Scholar.

42 Marín, Sergio Mota, “Estructura económica de Chiapas,” in Armendáriz, María Luisa, ed., Chiapas, una radiografia (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994), 338—39Google Scholar.

43 Government of Chiapas, “la. reunión del Subcomite Especial de Produccion y Comercialización del Café: Minuta de trabajo” (Tuxtla Gutierrez, March 7, 1989).

44 Author interviews with leaders of coffee producer organizations, Chiapas, November 1995.

45 See Richard Snyder, “Reconstructing Institutions for Market Governance: Participatory Policy Regimes in Mexico's Coffee Sector,” in Richard Snyder, ed., Institutional Adaptation and Innovation in Rural Mexico (La Jolla, Calif.: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, forthcoming).

46 Attempting to defeat the crony capitalist project would have been extremely costly for the small producers, given the state government's coercive capacities and demonstrated willingness to repress peasants. On state government repression in Chiapas, see Harvey (fn. 41).

47 On the Zapatista uprising, see Harvey (fn. 41).

48 See Pontusson, Jonas, The Limits of Social Democracy: Investment Politics in Sweden (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; and Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 8), 340–45.

49 On “state corporatism,” see Schmitter, Philippe C., “Still the Century of Corporatism?” Review of Politics 36 (January 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 In his study of rural food provision, Fox calls this the “sandwich strategy”; see Fox, Jonathan, The Politics of Food in Mexico: State Power and Social Mobilization (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

51 It bears emphasis that neoliberal reforms may result in the hegemony of new, rather than traditional, elites, as illustrated by the nontraditional oligarchies that have recently emerged in Russia and other former communist countries of Europe and Central Asia.

52 Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 8), 9, 156—59. For an argument that this pattern of costs and benefits does not fit the post-Soviet context, see Hellman, Joel S., “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Transitions,” World Politics 50 (January 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 The term “change teams” is from Waterbury (fn. 8), 191.

54 See, for example, Shugart, Matthew and Carey, John M., Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew, eds., Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See, for example, Nelson (fn. 4), 23; Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 8); and Geddes (fn. 23).

56 “Whole-nation bias” is discussed in Lijphart, Arend, “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research,” Comparative Political Studies 8 (July 1975), 166–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 On subnational comparisons, see Linz, Juan J. and de Miguel, Amando, “Within-Nation Differences and Comparisons: The Eight Spains,” in Merritt, Richard L. and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966)Google Scholar; and King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 219–23Google Scholar.

58 See, for example, Interamerican Development Bank, “Fiscal Decentralization: The Search for Equity and Efficiency,” in Economic and Social Progress in Latin America: 1994 Report (Washington, D.C.: Interamerican Development Bank, 1994).

59 See, for example, Callaghy (fn. 7); and Nelson (fn. 5).